Maintaining Equilibrium: The West’s Role in Guiding al-Golani Towards Moderation in Syria

As the Assad regime weakened and disintegrated, the ensuing power vacuum became a focal point of the global contest for supremacy. The interaction of autocratic coalitions, economic dependencies, and humanitarian emergencies converges in this once-thriving nation, exposing the fragility of international systems. 

Syria’s devastation stands as a stark and unprecedented reflection of our times, uniquely shaped by the involvement of modern nuclear powers and their strategic rivalries. Unlike conflicts of 50 years ago, the dynamics in Syria are intensified by the direct and proxy confrontations between nations equipped with the most destructive weapons humanity has ever known. This is not merely an echo of past wars; it is a chilling testament to how rising militarism, socio-economic instability, and the erosion of shared moral frameworks now intersect with the existential threat posed by nuclear brinkmanship.

Syria’s civil war created a geopolitical chessboard, where global and regional powers vie for influence. This fractured nation has become a “pawn to e4” microcosm of larger global struggles, exposing humanity’s vulnerability to militarism, socio-economic instability, and the erosion of shared values. Comprehending Syria’s significance necessitates an examination of two major geopolitical theories: Halford Mackinder’s Heartland Theory and Nicholas Spykman’s Rimland Theory. These ideas, while diverse, are not mutually exclusive; they provide complementary perspectives for analyzing global power dynamics.

The Geopolitical Theories in Focus

1. Heartland Theory (Mackinder): Formulated by British geographer Halford Mackinder in the early 20th century, posits that dominion over the Eurasian Heartland—encompassing Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Russia—is key to global dominance. Mackinder famously argued, “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world.” The Heartland is seen as a fortress, rich in resources and geographically protected from maritime attacks.
2. Rimland Theory (Spykman): American political scientist Nicholas Spykman offered a counterpoint, suggesting that control over the Rimland—the coastal regions encircling Eurasia—is the true key to global power. These areas, which include parts of Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, serve as the bridge between land and sea power, making them critical for trade and military influence. Spykman encapsulated his theory with the statement, “Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.”

While Mackinder emphasizes dominating the Heartland to secure power, Spykman advocates securing the Rimland to contain Heartland powers. Both theories highlight Syria’s strategic importance: although it lies outside the Heartland, its location at the intersection of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East makes it a pivotal node in the struggle for influence.

Key Players in Syria’s Geopolitical Arena

To understand the stakes, it is essential to identify the main players:

• Syria’s Current Reality (Abu Mohammed al-Golani, leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)): Syria is still a battlefield of conflicting interests. Assad’s regime clung to power with support from Russia and Iran, and now HTS may exploit the chaos to maintain dominance.
• Russia (Vladimir Putin): Under Putin, Russia seeks to maintain its influence in the Mediterranean by backing Golani. Such an alliance would safeguard Russia’s naval base in Tartus and extend its power into the Middle East.
• Iran (Ebrahim Raisi): Iran utilizes Syria as an essential component of its “Shia Crescent,” a corridor of influence extending from Iran to Lebanon. By backing Assad, Iran secured its regional supremacy, but will it try to ally with the Sunni Golani?
• Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan): Positioned at the intersection of Europe and the Middle East, Erdoğan’s Turkey is managing a delicate balance. While a NATO member, Turkey advances its regional ambitions, aiming to neutralize Kurdish groups by asserting control over northern Syria.
• United States (Joe Biden/Donald Trump): U.S. policy reflects Spykman’s Rimland Theory, focusing on containing threats by stabilizing Syria’s periphery. To preserve its alliance with Turkey and avoid escalating tensions within NATO, the U.S. prioritized its relationship with Ankara, even at the cost of undermining trust with the Kurdish forces that had been key partners in the fight against ISIS. The United States’ decision to partially abandon its Kurdish allies—by withdrawing troops from northern Syria and allowing Turkish incursions—undermined trust and exposed vulnerabilities, significantly weakening its regional influence. This decision reflected a broader balancing act of competing regional and strategic interests. Yet in stark contrast to President Biden, Trump’s assertive foreign policy demeanor could reshape the dynamics, potentially reining in Turkey if he recognizes the vital role of a sustained Kurdish presence in eastern Syria.
• China (Xi Jinping): While less explicitly engaged, China perceives Syria as a chance to further its Belt and Road Initiative, establishing economic positions that contest Western hegemony.
• The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF): Although having played a pivotal role in combating ISIS, SDF ambitions for autonomy jeopardize Turkey’s stability, engendering tension with regional powers.
• Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS): Under the leadership of Abu Mohammed al-Golani, governs portions of northern Syria. Previously seen as an extremist, al-Golani has redefined HTS as a local governance organization, aiming to obtain legitimacy from Western entities.

Syria and the Return of Mackinder’s Heartland Theory

Halford Mackinder’s early 20th-century heartland theory provides a lens through which Syria’s geopolitical importance can be understood. Mackinder contended that supremacy over the Eurasian heartland, encompassing Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Russia, was essential for exerting control over the global periphery. Although Syria is not situated in the core region, its physical location at the convergence of the Middle East, Europe, and Asia renders it a crucial focal point in the extensive struggle for dominance. 

This positioning enhances its function as a battleground for rival nations, each striving to assert supremacy over its fragmented terrain. Russia’s geopolitical interests in the Mediterranean are no longer protected by its alliance with the Assad government, and Iran can no longer utilize Syria as a pivotal element for its “Shia Crescent,” thereby securing its dominance over Lebanon back through Syria. China, though not explicitly engaged, perceives Syria as a prospect to enhance its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), therefore further diminishing Western hegemony.

Conversely, Western powers, guided by Nicholas Spykman’s rimland theory, have sought to stabilize Syria’s periphery as a counterweight to heartland ambitions. Nicholas Spykman’s Rimland Theory posits that the coastal regions surrounding Eurasia serve as the key to global dominance. These areas act as both a buffer against heartland powers and a fulcrum for controlling global trade and sea routes. The Middle East, as part of this strategic rimland, represents a geopolitical hotspot, with Syria standing at its fractured core.

Spykman’s famous maxim, “Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world,” encapsulates the rationale behind Western efforts to stabilize Syria’s periphery as a counterweight to heartland ambitions. Yet, these efforts have been disjointed and largely reactive. NATO’s focus on containing Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and the U.S.’s strategic pivot to Asia have diverted attention and resources away from the Middle East, leaving Syria at the mercy of regional and global power struggles.

In this dynamic, the Middle East is both a chessboard and a proving ground for the validity of Spykman’s theory. The absence of a unified Western strategy has allowed heartland powers and regional actors to fill the void, further complicating efforts to stabilize the rimland. Spykman’s emphasis on the rimland’s strategic importance underscores the stakes: failing to secure Syria’s periphery not only weakens the West’s position but also strengthens the influence of rival powers, tipping the balance of global geopolitics in ways that ripple far beyond the region.

Turkey’s Balancing Act: Heartland Alliances and Rivalries

If dynamically understood, Turkey could be strategically effectuated. Halford Mackinder’s heartland theory, which posits that control of Eurasia’s central heartland is the key to global dominance, provides a provocative lens to examine Turkey’s strategic moves in Syria. Although Turkey is geographically situated in the rimland, its actions in northern Syria directly influence the stability of Eurasia’s heartland. By engaging in military campaigns, leveraging geopolitical alliances, and navigating the Kurdish question, Ankara’s strategy reflects a calculated effort to shape the balance of power in this pivotal region.

Positioned at the crossroads of the Middle East and Europe, Turkey views its control over northern Syria as essential to securing its portion of the rimland. By shaping developments in this region, Ankara seeks to neutralize threats from Kurdish groups, project influence in the broader Middle East, and reinforce its strategic importance to NATO and global powers.

Turkey’s military incursions, including Operation Euphrates Shield (2016), Operation Olive Branch (2018), and Operation Peace Spring (2019), underscore its bid to control northern Syria. These operations aim to neutralize the Kurdish threat represented by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which Turkey views as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). For Ankara, Kurdish territorial consolidation in Syria poses a dual threat: a potential secessionist movement within Turkey and a weakening of its geopolitical leverage in the region.

From Mackinder’s perspective, controlling Syria’s northern corridor is critical for Turkey to exert influence over the heartland and its periphery. This region acts as a buffer against threats from both the Kurdish forces and broader regional instability. Having just recently established a “safe zone” along its southern border, Turkey not only is disrupting Kurdish aspirations but also is positioning itself as a gatekeeper to the heartland, a role that enhances its strategic importance to both NATO and neighboring powers like Russia and Iran.

Turkey’s NATO membership enables it to exert pressure on Western allies, thereby preventing the undermining of its heartland strategy by external actors. Its involvement in Syria demonstrates its intricate balancing act between regional ambitions and NATO commitments. Ankara’s readiness to pivot toward Moscow when it is consistent with its heartland strategy is demonstrated by its acquisition of Russian S-400 missile systems. This alignment was evident during the Astana peace talks, where Turkey collaborated with Russia and Iran to shape Syria’s future, despite their divergent goals.

In Mackinder’s framework, Turkey’s actions reflect a bid to consolidate influence in the heartland by leveraging its geographical position and regional alliances. Its cooperation with Russia and Iran, while tenuous, serves to counterbalance Western influence and secure its interests in northern Syria. 

The Kurdish Paradox in the Heartland Context

The Kurds’ plight exemplifies the geopolitical fault lines of the heartland theory. Spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, the Kurds occupy strategic territories that bridge the heartland and its rimlands. . The emergence of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), predominantly Kurdish and backed by the United States in the fight against ISIS, further inflamed tensions. For Ankara, the SDF’s dominance in northeastern Syria represents an existential threat, as it fears the creation of a Kurdish statelet could embolden separatist movements within Turkey.

From Mackinder’s viewpoint, the Kurds’ strategic position makes them both an asset and a liability in the heartland struggle. Their control of northeastern Syria grants them leverage over critical resources and trade routes, but their dependence on external powers like the U.S. exposes them to geopolitical abandonment. The U.S. withdrawal from northern Syria in 2019, which paved the way for Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring, starkly highlighted the Kurds’ precarious position in the global power game.

The Kurds’ partnership with the United States provided the SDF with crucial air support and resources, enabling decisive victories against ISIS strongholds like Raqqa. However, this alliance alienated Turkey, which views the SDF as indistinguishable from the PKK, a terrorist organization according to Turkey. Worse still, occupying a critical part of the rimland, the Kurds are trapped between competing powers: Turkey, Syria’s new regime under Golani, Iran, and even Russia. 

The Global Implications of Turkey’s Strategy

Turkey’s maneuvers in Syria resonate far beyond the Middle East. By asserting control over northern Syria, Ankara influences the dynamics of Eurasia’s heartland, shaping the balance of power between the United States, Russia, and China, all of whom view the heartland as a critical arena for geopolitical competition.

The U.S., adhering to Spykman’s rimland theory, has focused on containing threats from the heartland by stabilizing Syria’s periphery. However, its inconsistent policies—such as abandoning the Kurds—have weakened its position, allowing Russia and Turkey to expand their influence. Russia, in particular, views Syria as a gateway to the heartland, using its military presence to project power and challenge Western dominance.

Spykman’s rimland framework suggests that Turkey’s actions are not merely about Kurdish containment but also about asserting control over Syria’s strategic corridor. By establishing a “safe zone” along its border, Turkey aims to prevent Kurdish territorial consolidation, resettle Syrian refugees, and position itself as a gatekeeper in the region.

In this regard, President Erdoğan has implemented aggressive military campaigns in northern Syria, including Operation Peace Spring in 2019, with the objective of displacing Kurdish forces and establishing a buffer zone along Turkey’s southern border. These incursions have elicited international condemnation for their humanitarian consequences, which include the displacement of more than 300,000 civilians in Kurdish-controlled regions. However, Ankara’s actions are indicative of its overarching strategic objective: to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish stronghold at all costs, even if it necessitates occasional alliances with Iran and Russia. This uneasy alignment emphasizes Turkey’s evolving geopolitical position, as it attempts to reconcile its regional aspirations with its NATO obligations.

Turkey’s military incursions into northern Syria, which are being characterized as counterterrorism operations, have elicited international condemnation for their displacement of civilians and their threat to the fragile stability of Kurdish-controlled regions. However, Ankara’s actions are indicative of its overarching strategic objective: to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish stronghold at all costs, even if it necessitates occasional alliances with Iran and Russia. This uneasy alignment underscores Turkey’s shifting geopolitical position, as it balances its NATO commitments with its regional ambitions.

The Rimland Strategy Revisited: U.S. and Western Response

The United States, adhering to Nicholas Spykman’s rimland theory, has focused on stabilizing Syria’s periphery to counterbalance heartland threats. Yet the Western response has been fragmented, reactive, and often contradictory. While NATO allies condemn Russian aggression and Iranian expansionism, their limited military and financial commitments leave Syria’s fate largely in the hands of regional powers. The result is a fragmented approach that exacerbates the crisis rather than resolving it.

This disjointed strategy underscores the broader challenges of Western alliances in an era of waning American hegemony. The U.S.-led order, long characterized by economic interdependence and military alliances, now faces the dual threats of internal polarization and external competition from rising autocracies. Syria has become a symbol of these struggles, its devastation a warning of the consequences of geopolitical disunity.

A Call to Action: Building a Unified Response

Syria’s lessons are stark but not insurmountable. Abu Mohammed al-Golani, leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), has positioned himself as a pragmatic actor in Syria’s northwest, transitioning from a hardline extremist to a leader presenting HTS as a legitimate governance structure. Western powers have several specific strategies to pressure al-Golani to remain on a moderate course:

1. Leveraging Humanitarian Aid

• The West can tie the continuation and expansion of humanitarian aid to Syria’s Idlib province to HTS’s adherence to a moderate, governance-focused agenda. Aid delivery is critical in HTS-controlled areas, and conditioning aid on de-escalation and improved governance creates a tangible incentive for moderation.
• Direct engagement with international organizations ensures accountability and minimizes the diversion of aid to extremist activities, fostering reliance on humanitarian assistance as a stabilizing force.

2. Diplomatic Channels

• The West can leverage Turkey, a key regional player and de facto patron of Idlib, to exert pressure on al-Golani. Turkey maintains influence over HTS due to its logistical support and strategic interest in stabilizing northern Syria to prevent further refugee influxes.
• Coordinated diplomatic efforts between Western powers and Turkey can emphasize the necessity of moderating HTS’s behavior, aligning it with broader regional security goals.

3. Economic Incentives

• Providing controlled economic assistance and infrastructure investment for Idlib—tied to benchmarks such as adherence to ceasefires, de-radicalization efforts, and improved civilian governance—creates economic pressure for HTS to align with Western expectations.
• Supporting micro-enterprise initiatives and rebuilding efforts can shift HTS’s focus toward economic stability and governance, reducing reliance on militant activities for legitimacy.

4. Military Deterrence and Counter-Terrorism Pressure

• The West can maintain a calibrated military presence in the region, emphasizing that extremist actions by HTS will provoke swift responses, including targeted strikes and sanctions on leadership figures.
• Intelligence-sharing with regional allies, particularly Turkey, can deter HTS from reverting to extremist operations, as the risk of military and economic fallout increases.

5. Public Messaging and Media

• Promoting narratives that highlight HTS’s shift toward moderation and holding al-Golani accountable to these representations in the international arena can create a reputational bind. If HTS deviates from its proclaimed moderation, it risks losing both local and international legitimacy.
• Supporting independent media and civil society groups in Idlib can amplify moderate voices, providing a counterweight to any resurgence of extremism within HTS ranks.

6. Targeted Sanctions

• Imposing or threatening targeted sanctions on al-Golani and other HTS leaders for extremist activities can pressure compliance with Western expectations. This approach can be tailored to incentivize cooperation while isolating hardliners within HTS who resist moderation.

7. Engagement Through Intermediaries

• Using third-party interlocutors such as NGOs, local tribal leaders, or neutral states to maintain communication with HTS allows for back-channel discussions on maintaining a moderate trajectory without direct Western involvement.

Conclusion

Turkey’s strategy in Syria exemplifies the interplay between Mackinder’s heartland theory and Spykman’s rimland theory. By asserting control over northern Syria, Ankara seeks to influence the dynamics of both frameworks, securing its borders, projecting regional power, and shaping the balance of global geopolitics.

Everyone wins with a moderated, modernized Sunni State in Syria. The West’s strategy to pressure al-Golani must involve a mix of incentives, deterrence, and diplomatic engagement designed to promote his evolution from a militant leader to a figurehead of localized governance. However, success hinges on coordinated efforts among Western powers, Turkey, and regional stakeholders, ensuring that al-Golani’s path aligns with broader goals for stability in Syria.

Will we rise to the occasion, or will Syria’s tragedy become a harbinger of a world increasingly divided, unstable, and devoid of hope? As is often the case, the answer will depend on diplomats and policymakers.

[Photo by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, via Wikimedia Commons]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.